Peter MacKay Vows to Eradicate the Penguin Population

When Captain Robert Scott visited the Antartic in the early 1900s, his crew was shocked when they witnessed the "depraved" sexual conduct of the penguin population.

Scott's medical officer, George Murray Levick, called them "hooligans", and wrote a paper describing in detail, necrophilia, coercion and "non pro-creation sex". The times were not right to distribute his findings among the general population, but a few were printed for scientific research.

Since then further studies have been conducted, revealing something else about the sex lives of these flightless birds.

Sometimes they paid for it.

Penguins need stones to build their nests, and since there is often a shortage of stones, female Adélie Penguins will trade sex for them. Shocking!

Conservative Penguins

There has been a lot of media attention recently over Peter MacKay's Bill 36, legislation that will allow the selling of sex, but criminalize its purchase.

Apparently MacKay has fashioned the bill after the Nordic or Swedish model of dealing with the sex trade. However, what makes MacKay bat s**t crazy, is that he believes he will single handedly end prostitution in Canada.

Even if the Swedish model was working in Sweden, which it isn't, (it has only driven the trade underground), the motivation behind the manoeuvre differs greatly between the two countries.

In Sweden, it was feminist driven, seeing prostitution as the objectification of women. That is certainly true. However, there is a difference between being forced into the trade and choosing it as a career.

Terri-Jean Bedford, the Bedford in Bedford Versus Canada, that resulted in the Supreme Court decision that rendered our out-dated laws unconstitutional, wrote a letter to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, asking her not to participate in MacKay's nonsense until the Supreme Court can examine it.

The fact is that implementing the law is already proving to be a challenge in Sweden, as police are reluctant to make arrests and the courts reluctant to prosecute. I don't think it will survive.

In Canada, the Conservative government is motivated by misguided morality, emphasizing the stigma placed on any sex outside of the marriage. Unfortunately, Vic Toews didn't get the memo.

Neither did their provincial counterpart in Alberta, Mike Allen, who was arrested in a sting operation, while on government business in Minnesota. Maybe it's okay for Conservatives if you don't actually pay for it yourself, but can get taxpayers to foot the bill.

Conservative MP Robert Goguen, did get the memo, and while on the committee discussing Bill 36, he told the victim of a gang rape, “What I’m saying is you weren’t freely expressing yourself by being raped by three men … If you were rescued, you wouldn’t feel like your rights were violated? You don’t get it. OK.”

The only thing missing was the high fives from his colleagues.

Clearly this government is not concerned with the objectification of women, but simply putting an end to a practice that they find morally repugnant, evidenced by MacKay calling the Mike Allens of the country "perverts".

There are many reasons why men, and even women, seek professional sex services. Few because they are in need of perversion. But as columnist Michael Den Tandt recently suggested, it's none of the government's business.

A better model for this country to have adopted, is that of New Zealand, that has legalized prostitution. It has taken women off the streets and empowered them to set the rules, protected by law enforcement, rather than having to hide from it.

The Conservative Free Market Sex Trade

There are many ways to sell sex and many ways to prostitute yourself.

There is no denying that advertising has become more suggestive, as companies are increasingly pushing the boundaries of sexual content. One area that has seen a move in that direction, is the marketing of children's clothing.

The Canadian Counselling and Physiotherapy Association calls it the Hypersexualization of Tweens and Teens. There's no doubt that this is intentional, and the results troubling to say the least.

Pre-teen clothing market is worth an estimated 150 billion dollars a year. A survey of 15 major pre-teen clothing sites found that 1/3 of apparel was considered ‘sexualized’.


A recent survey showed that 22% of teenage girls report anal sex in the last 60 days.
 It’s estimated that 70-80% of teenage boys watch pornography.
 Another survey showed that 1/3 admit to sending a naked or near naked picture to their ‘crush’

One clothing company actually came out with a line of thong underwear for children with suggestive phrases imprinted on them.

So why are conservatives not attacking the corporate sector's 50 billion dollar child sex trade and unlimited profit from nearly nude sexual advertising?

It is essential to provide an out for those entrapped in the exploitation of sex, but that has to include tackling the root causes of that entrapment, including drug addiction, poverty and abuse.

We can't confuse that with those who willingly have made the sex trade their profession. They are Canadian citizens who need to be treated as such, not vilified when they seek protection from violent acts.

I watched the Doczone documentary Selling Sex, and one sex trade worker suggested that she felt less exploited doing what she was doing, than she did when she was working at a minimum wage job.

This is not a Religious argument, given that apparently God was Ok with it. Concubines, who were usually slaves, were part of the Christian culture. King Solomon had 300 of them.

A nest can be built in many ways, and if a few stones have to be traded in the process, when it's her choice, it's none of our business.

Why should only corporations be allowed to make sex a commodity?

A Guest Blogger With an Important Message About the Treatment of Some Military Personnel

On Remembrance Day we do our duty by wearing our poppy, attending a special service and paying homage to all veterans and those serving in the Armed Forces.  Little else can generate such passion, as witnessed every November 11.

Politicians of all stripes often exploit this emotion, especially when garnering support for war, and photo-ops with uniformed troops is money in the bank.

The Conservatives even hid behind our troops to avoid answering questions about Afghan Detainee abuse, allowing them to shoulder the blame.  Veteran Ombudsman Pat Stogran, was fired by Stephen Harper for speaking out against the treatment of Vets.

Stogran hit out at the Department of Veterans Affairs for being "deliberately obstructionist and deceptive," rather than helping injured soldiers. Stogran also said one government official told him that soldiers were less of a liability if they died in war, rather than coming back to Canada injured.

So given the attitude toward those injured in war, it should come as no surprise that military personnel, not injured in war, but still hurt in the line of duty, could expect even less.

I was contacted by Brian C. Bradley, a Veteran of the Canadian Forces, who wanted to share his story, so the following comes directly from him, an honoured guest on my blog.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Brian C. Bradley. I am a Veteran of the Canadian Forces.

In 1966 I completed my army reserve basic training. In 1989 I completed my army reserve officer training, and began nearly five years of service in the Canadian Navy training as a Combat Systems Engineer (CSE, or 044A in Canadian military classifcations). This same ‘five years of service’ began with basic officer training at Chilliwack, B.C., continued with second-language training at St. Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, and a year in Esquimalt, followed by just under three years of service in Halifax, NS.

While training in Esquimalt, I was billeted to the HMCS Qu’Apelle, where I suffered a fall in the shower onboard that warship, injuring my spinal cord at three levels.

Because the accident occurred while the HMCS Qu’Appelle was away from her home port, I was confined to my rack, and provided with painkillers until returning to Esquimalt five days later. On arriving there, I was rushed by ambulance to the base hospital.

In March 1996 I applied to the Veterans’ Review and Appeal Board (VRAB; a division of Veterans Affairs) for a disability pension. On three separate occasions within the first year of application (refer to Table ‘A’ on next page) the VRAB ruled against my application for a disability pension. I then obtained a ruling from the Trial Division of the Federal Court (Fed. Ct.) that the matter be referred back to a differently-constituted panel of the VRAB board (Fed. Ct. case T-157-98).

In the next year, the allegedly differently-constituted VRAB panel ruled twice more against my claim. The matter was once again brought before the Trial Division which ruled that the matter be referred back to a differently-constituted panel and awarded me costs (Fed. Ct. case T-2137-99).

Because this next allegedly differently-constituted VRAB panel failed to provide a decision within the next year, I filed a motion of Contempt of Court with the Trial Division. While the Trial Division (i.e., the Hon. Mr. Justice Martineau) would not grant this motion by citing the VRAB in contempt, it did again award me costs, even though none were requested, and supplied a step-by-step procedure to obtain justice in my case.

With no legal training, I attempted to bring the VRAB before the Trial Division again, after being once again denied a disability pension by the VRAB’s next (and sixth) decision. I lost this decision despite having provided professional testimony from a neurosurgeon, an orthopaedic surgeon and a general practitioner with more than 35 years of experience.

Other than being supplied with additional pain killers and 3 or 4 brief sessions of physiotherapy, my real injuries were not treated at that base hospital, nor at the base hospital in Halifax, where I was sent about two months later as part of the next phase of training.

Upon release from the Canadian Navy in 1993 I was assessed by a civilian general practitioner in Lower Sackville, NS, who immediately identified a C5/C6 radiculopathy (upper spinal cord condition), along with indications of other potential spinal cord level involvement, that had resulted from the accident onboard the HMCS Qu’Appelle.

This same GP initially referred me for assessment to a diagnostic service in Halifax (i.e., spinal cord MRI), an orthopaedic surgeon, and an internal medicine specialist. All of these physicians agreed that the three levels of spinal cord injuries (i.e., C5/C6; T11/T12 & L2/L3) were most likely the result of the accident that had occurred while I was serving onboard HMCS Qu’Appelle

None of these submissions by physicians were contradicted by testimony from similar professionals on behalf of the VRAB, yet the Trial Division of the Fed. Ct. ruled against my claims.

I was encouraged to re-approach the Trial Division based upon the experience of a lady who won her case in the Appeal Division in Ontario using my first two cases (i.e., T-157-98 & T-2137-99) as precedents.

To render such a re-approach at such a late stage in the events, I was encouraged to concentrate on my lower back injuries .... thereby, allegedly attesting to settlement for the upper back injuries .... with neither of these settlements ever occurring!

Not more than four years ago, The Trial Division ruled again in my favour (T-401-05) and referred the matter back again to a differently-constituted panel of the VRAB board. That same board ruled on four more separate occasions against my application for a disability pension, forcing the matter back to the Trial Division for ultimate resolution (T-617-09).

The VRAB fully exhausted the total number of decisions to which they were entitled in my application, recognizing that an award to me of a disability pension would mean financial ruin and subsequent political suicide for the government ‘in charge’ at the time of such a decision, given the tens of thousands of other veterans who remained deprived of such benefits.

The Hon. Mr. Justice Phelan (T-617-09) decided: "THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is granted and the Appeal Board's decision is quashed." Unfortunately, such a ruling does nothing more than refer the same matter back to the Respondent (e.g., Veterans’ Affairs), thus prolonging the history of my claims and thereby moving the VA's actions from the ridiculous to the sublime.

While Canadian governments over the past 80+ years have continued to disregard their legislated obligations to veterans of the CF and Mounted Police, how do you think these same governments are treating(?) the remainder of Canadian citizens?

On top of all of this, I have had to represent myself in the Trial Division of the Fed. Ct. on several separate occasions with at least 6 of these applying to my claims with the VRAB [refer to case numbers: T-157-98, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 1999 CanLII 7476 (F.C.) or

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/1999/1999canlii7476/1999canlii7476.html; T-2137-99, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCT 793

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2001/2001fct793/2001fct793.html; T-2137-99, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCT 12 (CanLII) 

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fct12/2003fct12.html; T-67-03, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 996 or

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2004/2004fc996/2004fc996.html; T-401-05, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 1470

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2005/2005fc1470/2005fc1470.html; and T-617-09, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 309 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc309/2011fc309.html]

In all of these decisions (including the latter two), the Hon. Justices supported my claims and rejected the VRAB's decisions. The greater weight of factual evidence by specialists in the fields of medicine applicable to my spinal cord injuries supported my claims, as did the greater majority of the above-listed decisions.

Who but a politician who allegedly represents his electorate but didn't see 'adequate votes' in seriously supporting this applicant's claims, would ignore these facts and not attempt to ensure this applicant receive something resembling the actual service of justice .... not to mention the adherence to legislated laws by a Fed. government dept. (i.e., VRAB)?

History has been written, how more often do we have to ignore it before learning our lessons? To support our (i.e., all veterans') efforts 'click on' the following and join our group:

http://homecomingvets.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/canadian-veterans-advocacy-is-galloping-ahead-with-projects-and-website/

http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com/rv2011.html

http://forum.kijiji.ca/post-7587682.html

Email author: bcbrad3@gmail.com
Yours truly,
Brian C. Bradley

The New Conservative Party was Not a Marriage But an Abduction

As the Conservative Convention attempts to change the rules in determining leadership, many in the media are calling the "new" party a marriage between Red Tories and the Reform/Alliance.

This was not a marriage, it was an abduction. The majority of Red Tories had no interest in joining the neoconservative movement. We knew what it was and knew that it was all wrong for Canada.

Back in the day when we were allowed to call Stephen Harper a neoconservative, one of those Red Tories wrote a book on the subject. Beyond Greed: A Traditional Conservative Confronts Neoconservative Excess.

The author of that book was Hugh Segal, a man who has now joined the Harper cheer leading squad as a senator, embracing all of the undemocratic maneuvers he once sounded the alarm over.

Reform's power in the federal election of 1993, achieved during a clear Progressive Conservative vacuum both in leadership and policy, emerged from the capacity to divide. Increasing anti-Quebec animosities in the west, encouraging intransigence on native land claims, feeding an anti-politician and anti-government cynicism, arguing for tougher law and order treatment of the most juvenile of criminals, doubting the appropriateness of liberal refugee policies, attacking equalization between rich and poor regions in the name of fiscal restraint — all these speak to the Reform party's attempt to maximize their gains from the power to divide. (1)

When Brigette DePape stood in silent protest as this neoconservative agenda was being realized, she shared the concerns that Segal once had.

Anne Lagacé Dowson writes for The Hour:

Parliament has never witnessed such excitement during what is usually a sombre event – the Speech from the Throne, which outlines the government’s plans for the next session of Parliament, such as the Conservative scheme to cancel taxes for the richest and most powerful corporations. Reading between the lines, the speech also means that more Canadians will be imprisoned for what were once minor infractions in the relentless war on drugs, never mind that last week a blue ribbon panel, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, pronounced the war on drugs a lost war. More Canadians going to jail is just dandy since Harper intends to build spanking new prisons.

Picture the scene. Harper is a control freak and on that day he had total control. Control over the Commons because he won the election by splitting the opposition vote using the basest of Republican scare tactics. Control over the Senate because he appointed three Tory hacks who had just lost their elections, which gave him a majority of Senate seats. Control over the Governor-General. Former governors-general Michaëlle Jean and Adrienne Clarkson both maintained a certain regal aloofness from the governments that appointed them. Not Harper’s appointee, David Johnston. At his swearing-in ceremony we were witness to the extraordinary moment of the Governor-General giving a fist-pumping cheer to the new Conservative cabinet.

Johnston was an old Brian Mulroney crony who tried to suppress the inquiry into the Airbus scandal.

The Reform party has maximized its gains from what Segal called the "power to divide". But the senator also warned that Canada's neoconservatives risked becoming "captives of their own propaganda".

Anyone following Stephen Harper's career for more than a week and a half, know that he is not in any way imaginable a moderate. However, in his path to power he has had to tap into the worst of people, and now that "worst" wants action. And for the next four years, that worst will get it, while the Canadian identity is systematically destroyed.

But what's worse than Harper's tapping into the "worst", with all of his Quebec, women, progressives, gay bashing; is that he has used the power of the American neconservative movement to get where he is today. And they too have come calling.

He has sold the Canadian soul to the devil, and the devil has a signed contract.

Now About This Marriage Nonsense

The new Conservative Party of Canada is not the offspring of a marriage between Red Tories and the Reform/Alliance. It is an illegitimate child of a backroom affair. The bastard of Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper. Or if I can continue to be crude, the result of a gang rape.


The bait was a signed contract between Peter Mackay and another PC leadership contender, David Orchard. Mackay promised that if Orchard threw his votes to him, he would not try to unite with the Reformers.

Orchard, perhaps not willing to take Mackay at his word, demanded that he sign a contract. MacKay did, but before the ink was dry, met his political lover Harper, and a new generation of conservatives was born. (You can read more about that here and here)

Oh, but the Progressive Conservatives voted on the merger, you say.

Yeah, about that. Enter Craig Chandler, a card carrying member of Canada's Religious Right.

The controversial Chandler had worked behind the scenes to not only "unite the right", but also to have Stephen Harper head up the new party. He had held a 'Roots of Change' conference, to draw in the fringe elements. And during the vote on the merger, created The 2Cards Campaign.

Chandler, the founder of the Progressive Group for Independent Business (nothing at all like its name implies), ran for the PC leadership to get to the convention, where he helped to defeat Resolution 9, which sought to ban dual memberships in the PC and Alliance. He then launched the 2Cards initiative.

As you are well aware both the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and the Canadian Alliance are sending the Merger Package for full ratification. The Tories and the Canadian Alliance are sending the proposal to their memberships and each party is different and this the real issue. Our polling numbers from The Strategy Group Inc show that 80 - 83.5% of Canadian Alliance members would support any effort for a united conservative movement. Also, since the Canadian Alliance only requires a simple majority to accept the Merger Package our efforts will not be focused on persuading Canadian Alliance members.

However, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is where the battleground is. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada's Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote from participating members to ratify this Merger package and this is where the problem lies. ... How can we insure that the Tory membership will embrace the Merger Package? Quite simply, by following the initial plan of the www.2cards.ca campaign.

This meant that Alliance members would get to vote twice. The one within their own party was a lock, but the majority of PCs were opposed to the merger.

It worked and the hostile takeover began.

Canadians Not Blameless

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." Plato

Canadian artist Joe Mendleson, a former PC insider, does blame Mackay, but also blames the Canadian people for being asleep at the wheel.

“I view us as a people in decline,” he says. “We are a society that is very lost and completely uninvolved with democracy.” He himself has been involved in the past, becoming a card-carrying Progressive Conservative working for Prairie populist David Orchard in the 2003 leadership race won by Peter MacKay.

“I was betrayed by Peter MacKay,” he says, referring to the deal between MacKay and Orchard in which MacKay promised, if he became leader with Orchard’s backing, not to seek a union with the Canadian Alliance. The deal was eventually broken when the PCs joined the new Conservative Party with Harper as its leader.

His disenchantment since has only deepened. Canadians, he says, have become “anesthetized – they’re asleep about their country ..."

He calls on us to protest. We have, but I believe there will be larger protests in the near future. People are just not mad enough yet.

Another Canadian artist also wrote of the "new" Conservative Party. Robert Bateman in the Wildlife Art Journal says: Why I Am A 21st Century Conservative

I am a conservative. This is why I deeply resent the neo-conservatives who are not conservatives at all. They are the opposite: radicals who are destroying cherished institutions and wreaking havoc on our human heritage as well as our natural heritage.

I do not consider destroyers to be conservative.

So many cherished institutions have been built with great care and dedication through the decades by well-trained people with good hearts. These are being smashed and weakened in great haste by politicians and ideologues who do not even understand what they destroy. Creation is long and difficult; destruction is quick.

Hugh Segal once espoused the same values as Mendleson and Bateman.

Power in a democracy comes not from the ability to divide or even the ability to direct. Power in a democracy ultimately comes from the capacity to persuade, and be persuaded by, the essential moderation of the population as a whole.
The ability to persuade is based on trust, and trust is based on a clear and established practice of not abusing that trust. Using government to divide, using government to impose narrow fundamentalist biases, using government to encourage unfairness by sins of omission or commission is precisely such an abuse.

Leaders or putative leaders who encourage a retreat from moderation seek to bolster the legitimacy of their narrow views and purposes by seeing the population become as disengaged as they are from a balanced view. These are the leaders who work not to prevent crisis but to create it and expand upon it. They seek to leverage it for their own purposes rather than prevent it by true and fair-minded actions.

The moderate imperative explicitly provides that a democracy's only real power is power shared and used sparingly, and where possible not at all. The legitimacy of a public office holder or aspirant seeking to lead by building a shared consensus about common responsibilities to each other is more enduring than the opponent who seeks power by turning one demographically distinct voter group against another. (1)

Boy did he fall hard.

So to my friends in the media. Never, ever suggest that Red Tories were privy to the building of this dictatorship. Aside from those like Segal who have sold out for power, most of us detest Stephen Harper as much as the Liberals do.

Instead of doing background checks on pages, maybe we should be doing them on these "new" Conservative senators. I'd like to know the exact date that Segal contracted out his soul.

Sources:

1. Beyond Greed: A Traditional Conservative Confronts Neoconservative Excess, By Hugh Segal, Stoddart Publishing, 1997, ISBN: 0-7737-3053-2, Pg. 153-155

If Not Our Parent's Conservative Party Then Whose?

Several months ago, two young people wrote an op-ed piece for the Globe and Mail: Not their parents’ conservatism. One of the authors was Robert Joustra, a member of Cardus, a group I've written of in the past, and Redeemer University College, the private religious school that was awarded $3 million of our tax dollars.

The cost of going to bat for Stephen Harper's brand of conservatism, I guess.

Many followers of Canada's traditional conservative party, already know the story of how Peter MacKay betrayed us by reneging on a written contract (go to Opposition to the PC-CA Merger on left), not to sell out PC's interests to the Reform-Alliance movement, headed up by Stephen Harper. In exchange for a $500,000 debt of Mackay's being paid (*Stephen Harper still refuses to tell us who the benefactor was), the historic Tory Party was annihilated.

Harper's current Chief of Staff, corporate lobbyist Nigel Wright (think F-35s), had once said of the Reform movement: **“Our aim now is to drive a stake through the heart of the Tory party”, and they did on that day. December 7, 2003. With MacKay holding the stake, it was fitting that it was the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbour.

So Who is the New Conservative Party?

If this is not yours or your parents conservative party, whose is it? Maybe Stephen Harper himself can best answer that.

In 1995 as a member of Parliament in **a piece for the Globe and Mail, he likens his party to the Conservatives in Great Britain (Margaret Thatcher), the Republicans in the U.S. and the Christian Democrats in Germany (theocracy).

A decade and a half later, I would say that they are more like the American Tea Party, long on nonsense, and short on common sense, or common decency.

But in 1995, we were calling Harper's party, neoconservatives, because, well, that's what they were. A new brand of conservatism in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and George Bush, where the corporate sector rules the roost.

The Social Welfare State destroyed, in favour of the Corporate Welfare State.

In November of 2010, naturalist/artist, Robert Bateman, stepped outside his comfort zone and wrote an article for the Wildlife Art Journal: Why I Am A 21st Century Conservative. In it he discusses what is wrong with neoconservatism.

I am a conservative. This is why I deeply resent the neo-conservatives who are not conservatives at all. They are the opposite: radicals who are destroying cherished institutions and wreaking havoc on our human heritage as well as our natural heritage. I do not consider destroyers to be conservative. So many cherished institutions have been built with great care and dedication through the decades by well-trained people with good hearts. These are being smashed and weakened in great haste by politicians and ideologues who do not even understand what they destroy. Creation is long and difficult; destruction is quick.

I purchased the entire article, because some things are worth paying for, and I'm glad I did. It was a heartfelt plea, reminding us of everything that is wrong with a government run by and for the corporate sector. And that while their rallying cry is "lower taxes", they never speak of their "waste of tax dollars".

As Bateman says: "The cost of corporate welfare amounts to many times that of social welfare. It is not a question of fiscal responsibility, it is a question of ideology."

Naturally, the Harper government could never sell a party, by and for corporations, so instead they have to hide who they are, suggesting that corporate tax cuts are good for us.

They improve your skin tone, aid in weight reduction, extend your life and heighten your libido. Except for the weight reduction, as hunger in Canada is on the rise, those other things make as much sense as 'job creation'. Voodoo economics.

However, if most Canadians would not agree that we are better served by corporations, why are traditional conservatives voting for this party? It's because they don't know. As Susan Riley once said:

Harper's Conservatives are edging up, but this appears to rest on the prime minister's hiding his true colours, pretending to be a moderate centrist and saving his bad-tempered rants against biased judges, socialist-separatist conspiracies, and "left-wing fringe groups" for closed-door meetings ... his party cannot be credibly described as a successor to the PC party of old -- the party of Sir John A. Macdonald, John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark. That is partly because Harper's recent policy zig-zags are clearly strategic and not heartfelt. He is on the record (and off) as a tax-hating, elite-baiting, crime-busting guy who believes there are no good taxes and, by corollary, very little that government can do right.

It is also a matter of tone. Neo-conservatives like Mike Harris, Harper and their acolytes bristle with hostility, inflame divisions, despise compromise and aim to intimidate, or scold, rather than persuade or inspire. (1)

In other words: "Not their parents’ conservatism".

We need to remind moderate conservatives, our friends, parents, grandparents, of this. They are not voting for the the party of Sir John A., Diefenbaker or Stanfield. They are voting for the party that deliberately drove a stake through the heart of that tradition.

And if the 'Harper government' can't be honest with them about that, then we need to be.

Footnotes:

*MacKay's financial secret safe with Harper, By: Stephen Maher, The Halifax Herald Limited , Thursday, May 13, 2004

** Nigel Wright, Vancouver Sun, May 9, 2000. He was then working with Stockwell Day. Before that he was with the Mike Harris government.

Sources:

1. Where does the Reform Party go from here?, By Stephen Harper, Globe and Mail, March 21, 1995

2. Conservative Longings, By Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen, October 16, 2009

World News: Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay Could be Charged with War Crimes

While the pundits cackle over the Afghan documents that we had to fight so hard to have made public, the International Criminal Court has a different mandate.

They are now investigating Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay for violations of the Geneva Convention. Stephen Harper has been trying to distance himself from the ICC, snubbing his nose at the convention, but there are some things that go beyond his supreme rule.

The ICC’s chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, is conducting a “preliminary examination” into human rights abuses committed in Afghanistan by Taliban and ISAF forces alike. And while the ICC has focused in recent years on prosecuting African despots, Mr. Ocampo said he will not back down from prosecuting Western governments that are not holding their officials accountable for their actions.

“I prosecute whoever is in my jurisdiction. I cannot allow that we are a court just for the Third World. If the First World commits crimes, they have to investigate. If they don’t, I shall investigate,” Mr. Ocampo said. “That’s the rule and we have one rule for everyone.” According to the ICC, Canadian officials (mainly Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay) may be in breach of the Geneva Convention and have launched an official war crimes investigation.

Now personally I don't care if these two do end up in prison, but it's just that they are taking Canada down with them. War Crimes? Canada?

And if that isn't enough of a black eye, we also learn that the Harper government has hired goons fighting in Afghanistan, that are deemed too brutal for even the United States.

Canada spent more than $41-million on hired guns in Afghanistan over four years, much of it going to security companies slammed by the U.S. Senate for having warlords on the payroll. Both the Defence and Foreign Affairs departments have employed 11 security contractors in Kabul and Kandahar since 2006, but have kept quiet about the details.

The records show Foreign Affairs paid nearly $8-million to ArmorGroup Securities Ltd., recently cited in a U.S. Senate investigation as relying on Afghan warlords who in 2007 were engaged in “murder, kidnapping, bribery and anti-Coalition activities.”

What has he done to us?

Who Needs the Tea Party When You've Got Peter MacKay?

Michelle Bachmann has been vindicated, because Americans now believe that Canadians must be the stupidest people on the planet.

Maybe not all Americans, only Arnold Schwarzenegger and his entourage, but when a Canadian cabinet minister and defense minister no less, is so ignorant of geography, how does that reflect on the rest of us?

“California and British Columbia have a shared border, a strong relationship. And some would say that our countries are probably as close as any two nations on the planet.”

MacKay was speaking with California’s “Governator,” former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, at a Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce dinner at the Fairmont Hotel.

The former Mr. Universe and Conan the Barbarian put his acting skills to good use, remaining stoic at the border blunder, with only a small sideways glance indicating he’d heard MacKay’s slip-up“California and British Columbia have a shared border, a strong relationship. And some would say that our countries are probably as close as any two nations on the planet.”

We really should just make these guys stay home. We'll pay them just to sit in a room and watch re-runs of Hee-Haw. I can't take anymore.

The Story of the F-35 Boondoggle

I've blogged on this a few times:

Here

Here

Here

And Here.

There is also a good story here.

Stephen Harper is telling workers they will lose their jobs if the opposition succeeds in cancelling the contracts. Nonsense. There's no guarantee that Canadian companies will even get the maintenance contracts. They can only bid on them.

More politics of fear.

F-35 Contract May be Big Trouble for the Harper Government

In February of this year, there was a debate over the F-35 fighter jets in the United States, the same jets that the Harper government is buying.

The Joint Strike Fighter was supposed to be the program that broke the mold, proof that the Pentagon could build something affordable, dependable and without much drama. But rather than being the Chevrolet of the skies, as it was once billed, the fighter plane, also called the F-35, has turned into the Pentagon’s biggest budget-buster.

And with worries growing that the rise in costs could overwhelm other programs, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates fired the general in charge this week and said he would withhold $614 million in fees from the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin.

This could have been devastating for Lockheed Martin. They had a lot riding on these planes, going into full production before the completion of tests.

But Harper to the rescue.

He'd take some of those puppies off their hands. Who needed testing? They were shiny.

On July 16, Defence Minister Peter MacKay stood in front a life-size model of a fighter plane and announced the biggest military purchase in Canada's history. "The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the best aircraft we can provide our men and women in uniform to face and defeat the challenges of the 21st century," he said. Canada had signed a multi-billion-dollar deal for 65 planes.

Naturally the opposition was concerned. We were broke. We couldn't afford them.

Soon enough, the NDP and Liberals were asking questions. Opposition MPs charged that it was fiscally irresponsible of the Conservative government to spend billions of dollars on stealth aircraft while the country's deficit ballooned. "We're in the middle of a $54-billion deficit and we're just about to do $6 billion in corporate tax cuts," Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff told journalists. "So they're buying their giant strike fighter, or they want to buy it, on borrowed money. We think that's crazy."

The opposition also raised questions about the lack of competition in the F-35 deal. In less than a month, defence analysts noted a shift in the national mood. Although news coverage was found to be "neutral and fact-based," there was a negative tone to commentaries and editorials, according to DND documents obtained by the Ottawa Citizen.

The planes are noisy, there have been fatigue cracks due to design changes and American citizens are expressing their concerns.

But the Harper government is still trying to shove them down our throats.

Canada's purchase of 65 Joint Strike Fighters is the largest military purchase in its history. It is also one of the most controversial. The deal was done without competition or even testing the aircraft against other contenders.

The government doesn't yet know the full costs of the fighter aircraft program. The Joint Strike Fighter -- or JSF -- is still being tested and has yet to enter into service with any military. The Harper government estimates $14 billion. One Defence Department calculation suggests it's closer to $21 billion. Unlike other military equipment purchases -- where stipulations ensure Canadian firms receive work that equals or exceeds the money spent -- the JSF deal contains no guarantees. Auditor General Sheila Fraser says it's a risky project.

We don't need those planes. We don't want those planes. So Harper will make sure that we have those planes.

Same old, same old.

Who Are We Training the Afghan Army to Kill? Us?

In March of 2006, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Canada, and during a press conference, was asked by our then foreign minister Peter Mackay: "Russia was in Afghanistan for a long time and with sad results. Do you have some advice for Canada?"

And though a translator was used, Lavrov understood and immediately responded with an emphatic NO!

I thought the question rather odd, given the history and wasn't sure if Mackay was trying to be a smart ass or was simply naive. Regardless, it was definitively a diplomatic faux pas.

Because the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is somewhat different than the official version. It was in fact a deliberate attempt by the Americans to lure the Soviets into an unwinnable war.

The U.S. was still licking it's wounds after their disastrous Vietnam adventure, where they wasted enormous amounts of money and lives, only to go home in defeat. And the fear was that during this time, the Soviet Union had been able to build a stronger military, and what better way to destroy that, than by allowing others to do their dirty work.

I was recently turned on to the writings of Chalmers Johnson, who died this past week, and am reading his Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope.

He describes the chain of events, reminding us that the American training and arming of the Mujahedeen, of which Osama Bin Laden was a member, took place before, and not in response to, the invasion.

It should by now be generally accepted that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on Christmas Eve 1979 was deliberately provoked by the United States. In his memoir published in 1996, the former CIA director Robert Gates made it clear that the American intelligence services began to aid the mujahideen guerrillas not after the Soviet invasion, but six months before it.

In an interview two years later with Le Nouvel Observateur, President Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski [shown with Bin Laden in photo above] proudly confirmed Gates's assertion. "According to the official version of history," Brzezinski said, "CIA aid to the mujahideen began during 1980, that's to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan. But the reality, kept secret until now, is completely different: on 3 July 1979 President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. (1)

When asked by Le Nouvel Observateur, whether he in any way regretted these actions, Brzezinski replied: "Regret what? The secret operation was an excellent idea. It drew the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? On the day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, saying, in essence: 'We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.' " (1)

And the Americans would continue to work behind the scenes, training and arming and killing.

And Ronald Reagan when president said of the created Taliban and other stateless armies:

"To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson—that there are things in this world worth defending. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors." (2)

If Reagan was alive and functioning today, I wonder what his message would be. Would he still admire their "relentless struggle" against their oppressors?

Not likely. Their creation of both al Qaeda and the Taliban was dismissed as "blowback" by the CIA. In layman's terms: "OOPS!"

In critiquing the George Crile book and resulting film, Charlie Wilson's War, a grotesquely inaccurate, historically challenged, version of the events; Chalmers Johnson writes:

Neither a reader of Crile nor a viewer of the film based on his book would know that in talking about the Afghan freedom fighters of the 1980s, we are also talking about the militants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban of the 1990s and 2000s .... Among those supporting the Afghans (in addition to the United States) was the rich, pious Saudi Arabian economist and civil engineer Osama bin Laden, whom we helped by building up his al-Qaeda base at Khost. When bin Laden and his colleagues decided to get even with us for having been used, he had the support of much of the Islamic world. (3)

The U.S. trained them and armed them and then walked away, "leaving it [Afghanistan] to descend into one of the most horrific civil wars of modern times."

Which brings us to the latest decision to extend Canada's involvement in the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan, another three years. It is being sold as "training". A non-combat mission.

Nonsense.

We will be engaged in an accelerated civil war without end.

And who will we be training? If the West is so afraid of Islamic fundamentalists, why are they determined to arm and educate those, who if not fundamentalists now, could very well be in the future.

What will our "blowback" be?

We should be working toward a peaceful solution, not creating more enemies.

It could be argued that when George Bush Sr. simply walked away from the mess his country helped to create, it triggered an internal disaster in Afghanistan. But this mess started because of imperialistic game playing.

I don't want to spend 500 million dollars a year training people to kill. The money would be better spent encouraging them to stop.

Sources:

1. Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope, By Chalmers Johnson, Metropolitan Books, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-9303-2, Pg. 12

2. Message on the Observance of Afghanistan Day, Ronald Reagan, From the Oval Office, March 21, 1983

3. Johnson, 2010, Pg. 88-89

Is the New Conservative Party Feeling the Seven Year Itch?

It happens in many marriages. After the first seven years, one or more of the partners starts feeling the urge to roam.

Apparently there is a little domestic trouble for the marriage of the Reform/Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives.

One of them has already opted out and another is being seduced.

Hubby Harper is too domineering and they're not going to take it anymore.

Or could it be that another has moved in and wants the wifies to go?

Harper's new chief of staff, Nigel Wright, a little jealous, has never cared for those progressive spouses. He once threatened violence stating that his "aim now is to drive a stake through the heart of the Tory party.”

Maybe Prentice and MacKay are doing the right thing, escaping with their lives. Not they hadn't been warned by some of those Tories in Wright's cross hairs: Joe Clark, Sinclair Stevens and Lowell Murray.

As Don Newman says:

...if the two most prominent Progressive Conservatives leave the government at the same time, it will really drive home the public perception — and the reality — that this government is really just the Reform/Alliance political machine. And Joe Clark, Sinclair Stevens and Lowell Murray will be right.

Touche!

Trouble in Paradise. Is Peter Mackay Going Out With a Bang?

After being out of the loop on the Afghan extension, and the unelected Dimitri Soudas playing "Mr. Dressup" as Defence Minister, is Peter Mackay now going to tell us how he really feels.

He clearly blames his government for the spat with the UAE, and apparently John Baird himself.

According to Mr. Proussalidis, Mr. MacKay walked up to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Senator Meighen Wednesday morning after the journalist had
started chatting with the pair. “It was all small talk until Defence Minister Peter MacKay walked up and joined the conversation, wearing a red ‘Fly Emirates’ baseball cap on his head and a grin on his face,” Mr. Proussalidis wrote.

“As I stood with the group, Senator Meighen asked about the cap, and that’s when the conversation became interesting. MacKay joked that he wore the cap for [minister John] Baird,” he wrote. As The Globe and Mail has reported, Mr. Baird, previously federal Transport Minister, lobbied hard against granting UAE carriers, including Emirates, extra landing rights in Canada. He and Mr. MacKay had disagreed on the matter. Mr. MacKay, as The Globehas reported, wanted to grant extra slots at Canadian airports to UAE carriers.

Who wouldn't want to stick it to John Baird, the pompous ass? Good for Mackay.

Will Peter MacKay be the Next Cabinet Minister to Resign?

In 2009, during the Afghan Detainee uproar, Stephen Harper was all but a no show. Instead of acting like a leader, he passed off the leadership role to Peter MacKay. The only time he allows his cabinet ministers to act for their ministry is when they're in trouble.

But Kennedy Stewart* wrote in the Sun that this could have been a political maneuver.

The explosive allegations about transferred Canadian prisoners being tortured by Afghan officials and the stink of a government cover-up might initially seem detrimental to Stephen Harper. However these events might eventually prove personally advantageous to the prime minister. Harper's uncharacteristic low-key role on this issue hints he is throwing his closest rival to the wolves to fortify his leadership position.

Slipping in the polls, again, Stephen Harper is probably feeling just as much pressure from within, so why not eliminate his competition? If the party wants a leadership review, who do they have to replace him? Jim Prentice was another competitor, but he's gone.

Stockwell Day? Jason Kenney? Both dumber than a bag of broken hammers.

Rumour has it that MacKay may be leaving politics and taking a job in the private sector. If true this could fulfil another Harper wish. He stated that his party must eradicate itself of Red Tories, former members of the Progressive Conservatives. With Prentice, MacKay and Thompson gone, I think that about does it.

Stewart* continues:

The next election is critical for Harper and he needs to win a majority or face dissent in the ranks. If Harper fails to secure a majority, party insiders will begin to look for successors, basing their decision on whether to push out Harper according to the estimated strength of any potential new leader. Before this incident, Peter MacKay was no doubt Harper's strongest potential leadership challenger.

The detainee issue was swept under the rug, but there are definitely signs that MacKay is being pushed out. He is not even in the loop over the latest decision to extend the Afghan "mission".

Of course MacKay is suggesting that the rumours aren't true, but he also assured us that he would never sell us out to the Reform-Alliance. He's going to have to do better than that to convince me.

*Harper will let MacKay suck up Afghanistan torture poison to preserve leadership, By Kennedy Stewart, Special to the Sun, November 30, 2009 (no longer available on line)

Is Dimitri Soudas Our New Defence Minister?

After hearing from Rick Hillier that Stephen Harper wants to handle military maneuvers from the safety of his office, it would appear that the Minister of Defence is now obsolete.

The unelected Dimitri Soudas is instead handling all matters relating to the military, including the possibility of a three year extension to the Afghan mission. He even outranks the DND.

A motion before Parliament, prompted by a petition presented by 30 million Canadians, will provide all citizens with free Ambien. Otherwise, we may never sleep again.

The Wonderful Malalai Joya Says Stephen Harper is Deceiving Canadians About the War in Afghanistan

I've posted before about Malalai Joya, the Afghan woman who went from activist to politician, to try and help the poor people in her country. She has been called "The Bravest Woman in Afghanistan", and I couldn't agree more.

Malalai has spoken out often about the corruption and lies told by the governments of both the U.S. and Canada.

And she now says that Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay are not being honest about the reasons for this war.

Little solace for those of us who knew that from the get go.

This was a war for profit and we were lulled into a sense of complacency with yellow ribbons and bumper stickers.

Now Stephen Harper has turned his back on the veterans while plotting another money maker. We need to be more vigilant. We need to view this war through the eyes of the victims.

Today Stephen Harper and the Canadian government are trying to deceive the Canadian people about the war in Afghanistan.Harper is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. On one side, he is saying Canadian troops will leave Afghanistan in 2011. But on the other side Harper is saying to US and NATO, don't worry, Canada will stay with troops and help in different ways to occupy Afghanistan.And Harper is saying that Canada will stay to do "training" of troops of puppet Karzai regime.

We Afghan people don't need any more "training" from Canadian government after 2011.
We Afghans don't want any more bombing after 2011.
We Afghans don't want any more torture by NATO and Afghan puppet forces.
We Afghans don't want any more occupation by NATO.
Instead of staying after 2011, it is better that Canadian troops leave sooner, leave now.

And the latest Wiki-leaks confirm what this wonderful woman is saying are true. This was a state sanctioned bloodbath on an innocent people, for profit. Nothing more, nothing less. We were never there to help anyone except ourselves. We lost our soldiers for nothing. We killed for nothing. We should be ashamed.

Tom Walkom recently asked: What was point of the Afghan war?

With the U.S. committed to Afghan peace talks, the outlines of the end to this disastrous war are becoming clear. In one form or another, the Taliban are on their way back. Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed lukewarm support for the talks Friday. But for Canada, they raise an obvious question: Why did we bother getting so involved in this conflict? What was the point of spending all of that money and sacrificing, to date, 152 Canadian lives?

And let's not forget the environmental costs of war.

This is going to end badly.

Canada's Tory Tradition is Now Officially Dead

The Conservative Party that started with Sir John A. MacDonald officially dissolved in 2003, when the Reform-Alliance bought them out, replacing the Progressive Conservative platform with a Republican style conservatism.

Though a few of the old progressives or what were referred to as 'Red Tories', remained, Stephen Harper made it his mission to change that.

The state should take a more activist role in policing social norms and values, Harper told the assembled conservatives. To achieve this goal, social and economic conservatives must reunite as they have in the U.S., where evangelical Christians and business rule in an unholy alliance. Red Tories must be jettisoned from the party, he said, and alliances forged with ethnic and immigrant communities who currently vote Liberal but espouse traditional family values. This was the successful strategy counselled by the neocons under Ronald Reagan to pull conservative Democrats into the Republican tent. (1)

This was a new conservatism, quite foreign to Canadian politics. And that's because it was and is American.

Stephen Harper did not unite the right, because the PC Party was never really a right-wing party. They were fiscally conservative but socially responsible. And CANADIAN.

With Harper's recent hiring of Nigel Wright as his chief of staff, there is a clear message to former PCers. This is not your party, it is our party. Take it or leave it. You're not in Kansas anymore.

Although, I suppose in fact, we're certainly closer to Kansas than anywhere in this country. Because Wright, who was a former advisor to Neocon Mike Harris, feels the same way about Red Tories, or Progressive Conservatives. They must go.

In May of 2000, Nigel Wright, then working for Stockwell Day and the Alliance Party, told the Vancouver Sun: “Under Joe Clark, the Conservative party has ceased to exist as a right-of-centre alternative. As much as it pains me to say it, our aim now is to drive a stake through the heart of the Tory party.”

Ouch! I felt that stake.

Wright had also worked for Brian Mulroney, but was always considered to be from the far-right.

Pushing for the Alliance to take over the Progressive Conservatives. He attended a private meeting of blue-chip executives in 2001 where Stockwell Day discussed his plans to form “a coalition” with the Progressive Conservative party, with himself as the leader, (Toronto Star, March 7, 2001) and later attended a 14-hour weekend strategy session hosted by Mr. Day to look at the possibility of a coalition or outright takeover of the Tories. (National Post, March 19, 2001) (2)

Not a "coalition"? Say it ain't so.

But alas the following year Stephen Harper went after the PCs again. And abused his franking privileges to do it (sound familiar?):

The federal Tories are charging that interim Canadian Alliance leader John Reynolds abused his free-mail privileges to send out a political letter to woo Progressive Conservative members. The letter, signed by new Alliance Leader Stephen Harper, was mailed out to Tories across the country by Mr. Reynolds, who has led the party in Parliament since Stockwell Day stepped down in December to launch a leadership race. But Mr. Reynolds used his so-called "franking" privileges, the free-mail system for MPs, to send the letter.

Tory House Leader Peter MacKay charged that the letter was an abuse of the privilege that allows MPs to send mail related to their parliamentary functions for free. He said he and others on the Tory membership list in his Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough riding received "franked" letters. "This is purely political," Mr. MacKay said. "Not only is it inappropriate, it's against the franking privilege rules. Harper is a former member of Parliament. He should know that's not allowed."

Mr. MacKay said the letter was signed by Mr. Harper and sent out without even a cover letter from Mr. Reynolds before the new Alliance Leader was returned to Parliament in a by-election this week.But Mr. Reynolds insisted the letter, which suggested that Tory Leader Joe Clark had misled his members about Mr. Harper's offer of a parliamentary coalition, fell within the rules, and the Tories' accusation is wrong. (3)

Joe Clark wanted nothing to do with the Reformers. But Mackay would later prove that he could bought. And now a decade later we are being completely snuffed out.

Oh well. We had a good run. 150 years. Besides, what's wrong with the Republicans anyway? I mean besides George Bush, the Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, Fox News, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh? Sigh!

Sources:

1. Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy. The Tyee, Donald Gutstein, November 29, 2009

2. Just the Facts: Meet Nigel Wright, September 27, 2010

3. Alliance misused free mail, Tories say, By Campbell Clark, Globe and Mail, May 17, 2002

When Stephen Harper "United the Right", He Solidified the Centre. Just Not For Himself.

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

How Stephen Harper became a "Tory" is the stuff of legend. Or more accurately, the stuff of fairy tales. He did have a brief stint with the PCs in the early 80's, but left the Party because they weren't right-wing enough.

The fact is, that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was not really right-wing at all, at least not in heart and soul. They were just right of centre. And they were 100% Canadian. And in many ways, historically, they were not unlike the Liberal Party in terms of policy.*

That doesn't mean that there weren't fierce rivalries. They were like two football teams (I don't want to use hockey because Harper has done that to death) who battle each other for the prize, but at the end of the day, both teams are in the same league, and committed to the game.

And while they both went after the same prize, the team that won it, honoured it. Showed it off and protected it for the next winner, whether it be themselves or their opponents.

They didn't win it, then smash it, to make sure that no one else could have it. That's how I see the Reformers, whether calling themselves Social Credit, Reform, Alliance or Conservative. They are the party that wants to smash the trophy and terminate the league.

Uniting the Right Was Not About Vote-Splitting

The common belief was that the PCs and Reform-Alliance joined forces to avoid splitting the vote. Sounds good but completely false. That's the way it was sold when David Frum arranged a meeting between Jean Charest then head of the PCs, and Preston Manning, then head of Reform.

In terms of bridging the differences between the parties of Preston Manning and Jean Charest, the conference made little headway ... the chasm in terms of the egos and pride of the leaders; the different attitudes that the parties have towards populist initiatives; Reform's origins in western alienation, Social Credit, and religious fundamentalism; and the fact that Reform emerged in part as an angry protest against the policies of a Progressive Conservative government made a rapprochement unlikely. (1)

A later report by Laurence Putnam confirmed the divide.

The first misconception about the Reform movement is that it is a conservative party. The Reform party has all the characteristics of a Western populist party and very few marks of a conservative party. (2)

And as to the myth of avoiding vote-splitting. In the West, many of those who voted PC did not go to Reform. Most of Reform's gain was at the expense of the NDP, another party that started out as a Western protest movement. But many also went to the Liberals.

Since the 2000 election, unity activists in both the PC and Canadian Alliance parties have preached that the PC party lost a major part of its family when the Reform Party rose to prominence, however, this is not exactly true. The PC Party did not experience a mutiny, but rather with the decline of the PC Party in Western Canada, an opportunity was extended for a new crew, the Reform movement, to come to power. In fact, many members of the Reform Party elected in 1993 had never been Conservatives at all. Preston Manning had been a member of the federal Social Credit Party prior to incepting the Reform Party. MPs Diane blonczy, Deborah Grey and Val Meredith were never members of the PC Party ... As these members were not Tories throughout the 1980's and early 1990's when the Tories were at their most successful peak since Sir John A. Macdonald ... (2)

Promoters of unity between the PC and Canadian Alliance parties had argued that if there were either only a PC or CA candidate in your average Ontario riding, they would have beat the Liberals in 2000. But what about Etobicoke North? In 2000, no PC candidate ran in Etobicoke North, but a Canadian Alliance candidate did, and yet they gained only 3.9%, and the majority of the PC votes migrated to the Liberal candidate. This despite the fact that provincially, the identical riding was held by PC M.P.P. John Hastings.

This riding is one example that proves 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2 when it comes to defeating a Liberal incumbent in Ontario ridings. Another interesting Ontario result was found in the riding of Markham, where Jim Jones was elected as a Progressive Conservative in 1997. Mr. Jones crossed to the Alliance in the summer of 2000, but lost re-election just months later. Why was Mr. Jones electable to the people of Markham, Ontario, as a Tory, but unelectable as a Canadian Alliance M.P.? (2)

It's because the majority of the Canadian electorate are moderates. The same people who voted for Brian Mulroney later voted for Jean Chretien, illustrating that votes between the Liberals and the PC Party were always liquid, while votes cast for ideologically-driven parties, like Reform/Alliance and NDP**, came from a "base".

The Reform movement only became palpable to Canadians when they shed their wolf's clothing and started calling themselves "Conservative", or worse yet "Tories", cashing in on a century and a half tradition. And for awhile, they were able to fool some of the people some of the time. But unfortunately for them, as their policies became increasingly un-Canadian, their level of support has drifted back to their "base".

They have no hope of drawing votes from the NDP, except perhaps in the West, but they are also losing the votes of moderates ... aka: ordinary Canadians.

So now they have a problem. Instead of eliminating what they thought was their own competition, they have eliminated all competition for the centre, and all of the "liquid" votes are now flowing away from them.

They are a right-wing fringe party. Nothing more. They came, we saw, they scared the hell out of us, and now they must leave.

This brings us to Michael Ignatieff. I see him as the perfect leader to unite the centre. And if I wasn't convinced before, a column by the widow of the late PC president Dalton Camp, has me sold. Ignatieff is not "a bleeding heart Liberal" but will lead a party that will be fiscally responsible but socially aware.

His family has a long history in this country, and come from all political stripes. His G-Grandfather, George Munro Grant helped Sir John A. and Confederation, and later promoted his railway. His uncle George Parkin Grant was also a Conservative, and author of the popular Lament for a Nation, as reaction to the defeat of John Diefenbaker. His fear was that we would become too Americanized and too beholden to corporations, and while this book was reactionary, he would later suggest that he felt that Pierre Trudeau was on the right track. (3)

Michael's father George Ignatieff was a foreign secretary under Diefenbaker, Diplomat under Pearson, and even served as acting president of the United Nations General Assembly***. He was also a peace activist, who fought hard against nuclear weapons, earning him a reputation as a "Peacemonger." (4)

Another uncle was Vincent Massey.

And though Michael Ignatieff's political views are his own, they have been nurtured in the true Canadian tradition.

So while Johannes Wheeldon may ask "Can Iggy Find His Centre?" He didn't have to. He was already there. And as Wendy Camp says: "He has come home to us." And whispering in his ear, will be family voices from the past, making sure that he doesn't screw up what they helped to build.

Footnotes:

*Stephen Harper referred to the PCs or "Red Tories" as "Pink Liberals".

**The NDP has since become more moderate and appealing, though some of their early followers feel that they had to sell out to do so. I like them and remember the greats like Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent, and the leader Jack Layton used to be.

***Stephen Harper and the Reformers never trusted the United Nations.

Sources:

1. The Winds of Right-wing Change in Canadian Journalism, By David Taras (University of Calgary), Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 21, No 4, 1996

2. An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance, by Laurence Putnam As prepared for the Fraser Institute, December 2002

3. Lament For a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, By George P. Grant, McClelland & Stewart, 1970 edition with new introduction by author.

4. The Making of a Peacemonger: The Memoirs of George Ignatieff, By Sonja Sinclair, University of Toronto Press, ISBN: 0-8020-2556-0

What is Stephen Harper up to Now? This Man is Dangerous

As Harper and his army of misfits have been posturing in the North, a story of immense military build-up in the area should be troubling to Canadians.

This is a government with it's head stuck in the Cold War and you can just imagine their "base" salivating and chanting "get those Ruskies".

Military exercises are one thing, and so is the appearance of an alliance as a deterrent, but the game that Harper and MacKay are playing is a dangerous one indeed.

After visits by Canada's defense and military chiefs to inspect the multinational war games, Prime Minister Harper arrived in Resolute on August 25, the penultimate day of the 20-day military maneuvers, to - in the words of one of the nation's main news agencies - rally the 1,500 Canadian, American and Danish troops present.

Harper's visit to inspect the exercise occurred only hours after another - potentially dangerous - publicity stunt by his government: Dispatching CF-18 fighter jets (variants of the American F/A-18 Hornet) to allegedly ward off two Russian Tupolev Tu-95 (Bear) strategic bombers patrolling off Canada's northern border, "something the Russian military does frequently." Harper's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, "said the two CF-18 Hornet fighters visually identified the two Russian aircraft approximately 120 nautical miles north of Inuvik in Northwest Territories," over international waters.The timing of the Canadian action, as that of its announcement, was calculated. As was a comparable incident in February of 2009 when then recently installed U.S. President Barack Obama paid his first visit abroad to Ottawa, to meet with Harper, and his host scrambled warplanes to intercept a Russian Tu-95 bomber - on a routine mission thousands of kilometers from the Canadian capital - in a show of bravado and of loyalty to his ally south of the border.

"The Russians said then the plane never encroached on Canadian airspace and that Canada had been told about the flight beforehand." [18] Last year Canada's prime minister and defence minister made the following comments:Harper: “We have scrambled F-18 [CF-18] jets in the past, and they’ll always be there to meet them.” MacKay: “When we see a Russian Bear [Tu-95] approaching Canadian air space, we meet them with an F-18.” A few days before Operation Nanook began, July 28, Canada also deployed CF-18 fighters against Russian Tu-95 bombers "as debate rage[d] over whether Canada needs the next generation of fighter jets to replace the nearly 30-year-old CF 18s. The Harper government has committed to buying 65 F-35 stealth fighters at a cost of $9 billion. Critics have said such Cold War-type jets are no longer needed."

I attended an all-candidates meeting in Kingston last night, as our local Liberals are looking to replace Peter Milliken, now that he is retiring, and the question of Arctic sovereignty was raised. The answers all round were good, but two things were stressed. Moral sovereignty and diplomacy.

Two notions that would be completely alien to this government.

So What are Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay Hiding This Time?

The CBC has recently learned that Peter Mackay is once again stonewalling the committee investigating the abuse of Afghan Detainees.

Letters obtained by CBC news show that Defence Minister Peter MacKay was unwilling to waive the government's right to solicitor-client privilege when it comes to the testimony of the military's one-time senior legal adviser, despite a request for it to do so from the House of Commons special committee on Afghanistan.

Last November, retired brigadier-general Ken Watkin, a former judge advocate general of the Canadian Forces, was called to testify before the committee as it investigated the Canadian government's handling of Afghan detainees.

During his committee appearance, Watkin refused to answer several questions on what he knew about the government's detainee policies, sparking a series of heated debates with MPs.

If MacKay and Harper were really innocent in all this, you'd thing they would want to clear their names. But that's a big "if".

Harper's Cabinet Shuffle. James Travers May be on to Something

Harper's reputation as a brilliant strategist is unfounded but his reputation for vindictiveness is right on the money.

And so is his reputation for eliminating the competition. But not necessarily the competition from the other parties. He has Guy Giorno to do that. I'm talking about the competition from within his own caucus.

In a recent column James Travers refers to them as "crash test dummies".

What do Jim Prentice, Peter MacKay, Jim Flaherty, Tony Clement and Stockwell Day have in common?

They all challenged Harper's leadership.

But what else?

They were all left holding the bag when the you know what hit the fan. Travers only mentions two:

Tony Clement is just the latest to hit the wall in the Prime Minister’s place. Scan this summer’s scathing headlines and find the industry minister absorbing the twin shocks of runaway summit spending and public outrage over the willful destruction of the census. Before Clement it was poor Jim Prentice. Once seen as a potential and more progressive Harper successor, the environment minister is now wandering lost in the badlands that lie between international pressure for Canada to finally get serious about climate change and the domestic priority of protecting the oil sands.

Now with Flaherty things are a little different. Like Harper when he's questioned on the economy, like the sub-prime mortgages he bought on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, he doesn't answer to us. He doesn't answer to anyone. He grins and changes the subject.

But he has friends in high places, like Nicole Eaton who tried to have Harper ousted two months before the 2006 election call. And Charles McVety, who has more power than most of the elected officials.

But then Flaherty never openly ran against Harper for the party leadership ... yet!

Peter MacKay hasn't really either. He planned on it but Harper bought him off by having someone pay off his 1/2 million dollars in debt. We still don't know who it was and Harper claims that we don't need to know. But it's always been understood that MacKay would probably be the next party leader. That was before Harper made him wear the Afghan Detainee scandal.

Jim Prentice was vying for the leadership and his name has been tossed around to succeed Harper. But that was before he was made to wear the climate change mess.

Then there's Tony Clement. While Nicole Eaton was pushing Flaherty, Mike Harris had Clement all polished up and ready to go. That was before Harper made him wear the census debacle.

And finally poor old Stockwell Day. The Alliance leadership got pretty ugly but some believe that Day may have given it one more kick at the can. But that was before Harper made him wear the "build it and they will come" prison nonsense.

Harper has closed in his little circle of allies, and in a bunker mentality, everyone outside that circle is the enemy. And he will not be taken alive.